Bring back a23

[badosu]

15 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

These complaints I have been repeated many times over on the forum but never seem to be addressed beyond being dismissed. 

Forum is not the proper place except for informal discussion, you're basically waiting for a dev to read your comment and decide to work on it?

Feel free to suggest a fix on https://code.wildfiregames.com/ . E.g. "Decrease build times dues to ...", attach a replay and gg

[Freagarach]

Let me explain a little how balancing is done nowadays (with no active balancer in the development team).

Players (usually not devs, for they play too little or not high enough level) spot something that they think needs addressing, e.g. the unit production times being too long. They discuss that with other players. When they find themselves in a position backed by a number of other (esteemed) players, they can choose one of several courses of action:

• State a number of times that there is a problem, and it _needs_ to be addressed.
• Create a patch on Phabricator that addresses the issue, and point fellow players to discuss there, with a reference to a forum post describing the issue and the opinion of several other players.
• Create a thread on the balancing subforums, that states the issue, (perhaps even with possible fixes) and hope someone else makes the patch once a consensus has been reached, which, obviously, will link to the thread.

Guess what will be not effective

[EDIT]: @badosu beat me to it

Edited March 11, 2021 by Freagarach
Link.

[chrstgtr]

15 minutes ago, badosu said:

Forum is not the proper place except for informal discussion, you're basically waiting for a dev to read your comment and decide to work on it?
 

Come on. My point is that it has been read and it has been dismissed (actively and/or passively) by devs on the forums. Maybe I and others didn't go through the proper medium, but why would we if we just get told we're wrong by every dev that is on the forum? Devs can't say we need feedback from players and then say that the feedback is substantively wrong when they get the input. Just like devs can't say we need feedback from players and then say feedback is procedurally wrong and doesn't count because it isn't written in the right place. 

[badosu]

> but why would we if we just get told we're wrong by every dev that is on the forum?

A big part of the balance work was done by Nescio, he has a lot of knowledge in this matter and might actually agree with you. With so many threads discussing the same thing with a lot of noise distributed along them I find it hard for all devs to have read all the suggestions and dismissed them. There's a place where visibility to dev team is more preeminent and a civil focused discourse can be reached.

[badosu]

5 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Just like devs can't say we need feedback from players and then say feedback is procedurally wrong and doesn't count because it isn't written in the right place. 

Can't you see many issues pointed out are viewed as actual issues by the dev team as well? The thing is players will never know any work is being done, won't enjoy any of those fixes until the new release and will keep being disgruntled meanwhile.

Having a more up-to-date installation channel addresses that issue. Frankly, after experiencing this development model somewhere else I can't understand how a collaborative development model can be sustainable without it.

[hyperion]

11 minutes ago, borg- said:

We have created a subforum for this and so far most people who criticize with harsh words here, have not posted anything there, so how do they think of helping?

Which isn't open for posting ...

At least it's better then all private as in the past.

[chrstgtr]

4 minutes ago, badosu said:

Can't you see many issues pointed out are viewed as actual issues by the dev team as well? The thing is players will never know any work is being done, won't enjoy any of those fixes until the new release and will keep being disgruntled meanwhile.

Here again the problem is that many of these were not problems before. I will make posts in the other space (although, as I have previously pointed out, the one instance in which I did this several players, including myself, all posted saying the change was a bad idea yet the devs moved forward with the change anyways). An overarching theme here is that many players feel that a large portion of the dev team doesn't listen to players' concerns and feedback and the replies from many devs on this forum only reinforce that feeling. But I will try your way one last time. 

[BoredRusher]

44 minutes ago, badosu said:

Forum is not the proper place except for informal discussion, you're basically waiting for a dev to read your comment and decide to work on it?

Feel free to suggest a fix on https://code.wildfiregames.com/ . E.g. "Decrease build times dues to ...", attach a replay and gg

 

43 minutes ago, Freagarach said:

Let me explain a little how balancing is done nowadays (with no active balancer in the development team).

Players (usually not devs, for they play too little or not high enough level) spot something that they think needs addressing, e.g. the unit production times being too long. They discuss that with other players. When they find themselves in a position backed by a number of other (esteemed) players, they can choose one of several courses of action:

• State a number of times that there is a problem, and it _needs_ to be addressed.
• Create a patch on Phabricator that addresses the issue, and point fellow players to discuss there, with a reference to a forum post describing the issue and the opinion of several other players.
• Create a thread on the balancing subforums, that states the issue, (perhaps even with possible fixes) and hope someone else makes the patch once a consensus has been reached, which, obviously, will link to the thread.

Guess what will be not effective

[EDIT]: @badosu beat me to it

Those are informations, for instance, developers have never told us (since we are complaining here at least).

Thank you, I and others will follow this way.

[borg-]

The balance cannot be heard by everyone, and that is logical. Each player has a perspective on what op is and what not. Yesterday player Melunises said that champions were unfeasible in this alpha, @vinme and others said no, he insisted that it was. Well that's his point of view, and if we follow his vision then we need to do something for champions. However, I proved to him in two 1v1 games that champions are very possible, so he understood. Balancing is done by the best players for that reason. When there is a constant complaint like in alpha23, slinger, then we know that something needs to be done because all players are complaining, at all levels. Developing open source games is difficult because each person has a "perfect" game vision.

Anyway, we are working for a25, today I was talking to @ValihrAnt about some changes that were necessary for a25, and I would like to share.

Pikeman and spearman need to have an counter vs elephants.

Champion elephants need a hp reduction like 10%.

Mercenaries need to cost a little less metal and maybe start at rank 2.

Reduce the damage of towers a little or decrease the amount of arrows.

Archers needs a little less accuracy, from 2.0 to 2.5.

Ranged cavalry need to move a little faster (16).

Units need reduction in training time mainly cavalry. 8 women 10/12 infantry and 14/15 cav?

It is clear that these ideas are based only on a24. As a25 is built, some values must change.

[badosu]

8 minutes ago, borg- said:

Archers needs a little less accuracy, from 2.0 to 2.5.

Generally buffs are more desired imo for balance changes. In this case buffing skirmishers in general. Balance against melee comp seems good.

[BoredRusher]

16 minutes ago, borg- said:

The balance cannot be heard by everyone, and that is logical. Each player has a perspective on what op is and what not. Yesterday player Melunises said that champions were unfeasible in this alpha, @vinme and others said no, he insisted that it was. Well that's his point of view, and if we follow his vision then we need to do something for champions. However, I proved to him in two 1v1 games that champions are very possible, so he understood. Balancing is done by the best players for that reason. When there is a constant complaint like in alpha23, slinger, then we know that something needs to be done because all players are complaining, at all levels. Developing open source games is difficult because each person has a "perfect" game vision.

Anyway, we are working for a25, today I was talking to @ValihrAnt about some changes that were necessary for a25, and I would like to share.

Pikeman and spearman need to have an counter vs elephants.

Champion elephants need a hp reduction like 10%.

Mercenaries need to cost a little less metal and maybe start at rank 2.

Reduce the damage of towers a little or decrease the amount of arrows.

Archers needs a little less accuracy, from 2.0 to 2.5.

Ranged cavalry need to move a little faster (16).

Units need reduction in training time mainly cavalry. 8 women 10/12 infantry and 14/15 cav?

It is clear that these ideas are based only on a24. As a25 is built, some values must change.

This will be a great starting point to reestablish a good game-play feeling.

The next step will be to correct units state machine according to those newer changes and according to the snapping addition (which still have not been addressed).

[ValihrAnt]

Quote

Pikeman and spearman need to have an counter vs elephants.

Agree with this.

Quote

Champion elephants need a hp reduction like 10%.

Don't think this one is necessary with spearmen getting an attack bonus vs elephants. Can maybe reduce their armor values by 1 as they now get affected by blacksmith armor upgrades. So initially they'll have less armor than in a23 but after upgrades they'll have more.

Quote

Mercenaries need to cost a little less metal and maybe start at rank 2.

This would require a very hefty increase in food cost then.

42 minutes ago, borg- said:

Reduce the damage of towers a little or decrease the amount of arrows.

I wouldn't fight against a small nerf.

43 minutes ago, borg- said:

Archers needs a little less accuracy, from 2.0 to 2.5.

I agree with a nerf on archers. For infantry damage or accuracy, or a bit of both and for cav archers accuracy.

44 minutes ago, borg- said:

Ranged cavalry need to move a little faster (16).

Yes, early cavalry are much too weak now and pretty much are only useful for trying to harass berries.

46 minutes ago, borg- said:

Units need reduction in training time mainly cavalry. 8 women 10/12 infantry and 14/15 cav?

Yes, a return to the old values or something similar is necessary. I was happy to experiment with the changes, but upon figuring out the meta more it's just simply a step back. I guess it also depends on how you define spam. In a23 making 1 barrack for a faster uptime or 2 for a stronger eco approach was the norm. Now the meta, atleast in my experience, is to plop down 2/3 barracks in p1 and spam from there as resources come in quicker than they can be spent otherwise. For me that fits as an increase in unit spam.

On a tangent, I suppose another reason for doing more barracks is that the 2nd level economy techs have become more expensive for less gain and it's more efficient to just spam out units in p1 and skip straight to p3, while getting the techs on the way up. Not getting the phase up hp bonuses also makes it super risky to phase up early now. In higher level games it was something that was already being punished, especially by @borg-and @Feldfeld , and with those bonuses gone it becomes super dangerous for no real gain.

[Silier]

can you be please more concrete and give examples maybe point out time in the replay when you experienced unit state machine being broken?

as I sad earlier unit state machine or UnitAI is complex thing and it's code is even more complex because its result depends on many factors, like unitmotion, pathfinding, prefered classes to attack, if command was given by user or not. 

therefore it is not so trivial just to watch a replay and debug every potential action by units which looks a bit odd.

for example I noticed enemy was using archers in formation and had few healers that basically nullified any damage you did to archers in the first place.

their attack in formation looked faster than should but that could be by animation canceling when player ordered whole formation to attack one target. 

there have been opened ticket about rams ignoring houses and targeting tower which cant reach and the cause is probably slight change in prefered attack target to not bother by houses when towers are around with goal to improve behaviour while this went overlooked when testing. 

 

no one is perfect and please take in mind game was tested by several people many times, yes the reviewer should have account for that possibility and test it, but ptobbaly forgot and relied on testing to reveal possible issue, which didnt because probably of playstyle which was used during testing phase.

 

worse pathfidnig is probably result of efforts to prevent longstanding issue players have been complaining that is to prevent dancing or to make it almost impossible, that makes units rotates and as result of that, they more often bump to each other trying to find way out of the Collison they fail too many times and therefore go idle. it is not somehitng what can be solved by blink of an eye. to minimize the impact of this, there is proposal in work to allow units to push each other and go around more easily. 

yes snapping feature introduced more perfect walls of buildings around which now pathfinder has to work.

 

so what would be your suggestion (I am not joking)

do you suugest to remove this changes which prevented dancing (one of the most complained thing on the forum during last releases) and snapping feature which allows to layout your city better or are willing to accept the fact there might be non trivial ways how to fix issues they could have cause? 

[Dakara]

12 minutes ago, ValihrAnt said:

Agree with this. YESSS i want more Melee unit ! 

Don't think this one is necessary with spearmen getting an attack bonus vs elephants. Can maybe reduce their armor values by 1 as they now get affected by blacksmith armor upgrades. So initially they'll have less armor than in a23 but after upgrades they'll have more. Skimish and piques againist elefant will be ok, don't need nerf hp of elefant

This would require a very hefty increase in food cost then.

Choice of mercenary is very hard to do.. cost a lot of METAL but if we up the cost of food, what the difference beetwen citizen and mercenary (except they can't recolt), maybe 1 sec time training? 

I wouldn't fight against a small nerf.

Nerf passive arrow is good idea, for reduce slighty the turle and indirectly buff the possibility of rush/attack

I agree with a nerf on archers. For infantry damage or accuracy, or a bit of both and for cav archers accuracy.

Why not, you can also buff melee unit, maybe with armor or movespeed (in fight for no buff the economy)

Yes, early cavalry are much too weak now and pretty much are only useful for trying to harass berries.

With A24 horrible to move unit so maybe more speed can be good to skirmish cav.

Yes, a return to the old values or something similar is necessary. I was happy to experiment with the changes, but upon figuring out the meta more it's just simply a step back. I guess it also depends on how you define spam. In a23 making 1 barrack for a faster uptime or 2 for a stronger eco approach was the norm. Now the meta, atleast in my experience, is to plop down 2/3 barracks in p1 and spam from there as resources come in quicker than they can be spent otherwise. For me that fits as an increase in unit spam.

On a tangent, I suppose another reason for doing more barracks is that the 2nd level economy techs have become more expensive for less gain and it's more efficient to just spam out units in p1 and skip straight to p3, while getting the techs on the way up. Not getting the phase up hp bonuses also makes it super risky to phase up early now. In higher level games it was something that was already being punished, especially by @borg-and @Feldfeld , and with those bonuses gone it becomes super dangerous for no real gain.

For more requirement to push phase 2. Phase 2 : -10 or 15% training time units citizen, phase 3: -20 or 30% training time units citizen and possibilty to make little siege unit phase 2(not overpower ,just like tree trunk with 2 mens, or something,  At Alpha 21 the spam cav was very indecent as remember.  Alpha 24 you can stay P1 long time lol .

This value have to be balanced of course (i say 10/15 randomly, and why not also -10% construction time by phase for building of first phase/previous phase).  

 

 

[Dakara]

Compared to the apha 23 have you noticed any delay in the orders of the game? Shift action, shift put several units to be formed?

Thanks for your feedback

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

Hey @hyperion

Thank you for the response.

I feel the late game stability is much stronger than you stated it to be, at least in the 4v4 setup that is most common. I do not have any replays to post because I don't know how to do that, but I am sure that you have heard of or even played one of these endless 4v4s. In retrospect, the a23 level of instability was a bit high during 15-25 minutes, but not quite the spike that comes with a24 at 18 minutes (due to the speed at which multiple eles and rams can be acquired). Usually there are 2 outcomes to a balanced 4v4, the game ends at 20 minutes and things are labeled "OP" or teams are considered "imbalanced", or players survive the 17-21 minute instability spike and then the game becomes stagnated and endless.

I think that while these things are considered and debated for a25, we should talk about how we can change our 4v4 setups so we can still have fun in a24. 

• Larger maps could enable more movement which would make it more unstable, make metal more available late game and let more players access enough gold. This change would also reduce choke-points, reduce effectiveness of defenses ( since you already need to build way more buildings in total than in a23), and make archers' vulnerabilities more pronounced and exploitable. Larger maps also make more lag, so this would not work for every 4v4.
• Perhaps playing with only 1 fort allowed at any time, (if it is destroyed can rebuild). This would prevent some overwhelming fort spam. In one instance, @Dizaka built forts around the edge of the map faster than @chrstgtr could destroy them with large numbers of siege (he made it about (2/3)*pi around the circle).  I am not as sure about this one so someone could convince me that it might be bad.

This is one thing that I think makes AoE2 such a good game so long after being initially released. It seems to be slightly unstable throughout most matches, so you could expect game-changing decisions and developments to be made at any time. I think a slight instability rewards action and creative strategies, but does not guarantee more success like in the case of too much instability at 17 to 21 minutes in a24,. I understand that it is incredibly complicated to design a game to have such an ideal and controlled level of stability/ instability, but I think it is an aspect worth improving for a25.

disclaimer: I never played AoE2, have only watched some videos of team games and 1v1s.

[badosu]

@ValihrAnt@borg-We need to think less of stats balance in themselves and more on unit roles.

In this case the melee role as meat shield or archer counter is preserved, it's still effective. The problem is that skirmishers now can't fulfill theirs (infantry support). So thereby I think buffing skirmishers in general in such a way that they can actually handle archers is better than nerfing archers, otherwise we just get back to that state where an army of 20 archers take ages to kill a single spearman.

[chrstgtr]

9 minutes ago, badosu said:

@ValihrAnt@borg-We need to think less of stats balance in themselves and more on unit roles.

In this case the melee role as meat shield or archer counter is preserved, it's still effective. The problem is that skirmishers now can't fulfill theirs (infantry support). So thereby I think buffing skirmishers in general in such a way that they can actually handle archers is better than nerfing archers, otherwise we just get back to that state where an army of 20 archers take ages to kill a single spearman.

Increase unit speed--it will make the archers distance adv smaller and make it less likely that projectiles will hit. Skirms last alpha couldn't advance on fully massed archers, so it shouldn't be a problem. 

[chrstgtr]

30 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Hey @hyperion

Thank you for the response.

I feel the late game stability is much stronger than you stated it to be, at least in the 4v4 setup that is most common. I do not have any replays to post because I don't know how to do that, but I am sure that you have heard of or even played one of these endless 4v4s. In retrospect, the a23 level of instability was a bit high during 15-25 minutes, but not quite the spike that comes with a24 at 18 minutes (due to the speed at which multiple eles and rams can be acquired). Usually there are 2 outcomes to a balanced 4v4, the game ends at 20 minutes and things are labeled "OP" or teams are considered "imbalanced", or players survive the 17-21 minute instability spike and then the game becomes stagnated and endless.

I think that while these things are considered and debated for a25, we should talk about how we can change our 4v4 setups so we can still have fun in a24. 

• Larger maps could enable more movement which would make it more unstable, make metal more available late game and let more players access enough gold. This change would also reduce choke-points, reduce effectiveness of defenses ( since you already need to build way more buildings in total than in a23), and make archers' vulnerabilities more pronounced and exploitable. Larger maps also make more lag, so this would not work for every 4v4.
• Perhaps playing with only 1 fort allowed at any time, (if it is destroyed can rebuild). This would prevent some overwhelming fort spam. In one instance, @Dizaka built forts around the edge of the map faster than @chrstgtr could destroy them with large numbers of siege (he made it about (2/3)*pi around the circle).  I am not as sure about this one so someone could convince me that it might be bad.

This is one thing that I think makes AoE2 such a good game so long after being initially released. It seems to be slightly unstable throughout most matches, so you could expect game-changing decisions and developments to be made at any time. I think a slight instability rewards action and creative strategies, but does not guarantee more success like in the case of too much instability at 17 to 21 minutes in a24,. I understand that it is incredibly complicated to design a game to have such an ideal and controlled level of stability/ instability, but I think it is an aspect worth improving for a25.

disclaimer: I never played AoE2, have only watched some videos of team games and 1v1s.

For reference I had 9 cata in that game. Dizaka was all but dead at minute 18 but because of turtle game lasted 60 minutes. Game would've lasted longer too if it wasn't for the Dizaka's other flank dying and him getting attacked from both sides.

For color on how long the match lasted and slow paced it was, Dizaka made his suggestion on the forum that walls should be limited in number as he was simultaneously spamming them faster than I could destroy his city. 

[a 0ad player]

Hi,

thanks to everyone involved in developing 0ad. I really like the game.

I think the current unit vs unit balance and various types of units are good. I think new to a24 is the hard counter of archers vs. infantry spearmen/ slinger. In a23 the direction of the counter was reversed as long as there were not a large number of archers (affected 2-3 civilizations).

At the moment I see the counterattack units as follows:
Bow: hard counterattack against infantry spearmen / slinger
Spear: counters bow
Melee cavalry: very hard counterattack archers
Infantry spearmen: counters spear
Slinger: counters spear and building

In short, the two main, ranged economic units are countered harshly by archers. The rock, scissors, paper system is much more important in a24 than in a23. I like strong units and find the balance good.

When I counter archer civilizations with melee spear or melee cavalry, the archers are withdrawn under towers, castles, CC or temples. From phase 2 there are often 1-4 towers. There should not be fought or not longer than 1 minute. Longer battles in the economy of the archers civilizations are often not useful / too expensive from phase 2 on, especially if there are too many towers. I mainly play team games and I refer to that in particular.

In my humble opinion, the gameplay is currently broken due to the decisions to be made. As an archer civilization I let the economy grow and only need to pay attention to building towers and later anti ram. In P3 I can easily force any fight using 1-2 rams so that javelin and slinger civilizations lose either buildings or units.

As Infantry spearmen civilization, I might win if I decide to largely forego my main long-range economic unit and use close combat spearmen, use close combat cavalry, use siege weapons early on, use champions.
In short, I have to do a lot more and make a lot more decisions to get the same result. While archer civilizations can play standard and do not have to pay attention to a hard Unit counter.

At the moment I don't have constant use for javelin units (main ranged economic unit) and would find a buff e.g. bringing back the higher walking speed, higher HP or other changes good. Furthermore, I would find opportunities to hit the economy of archery civilizations good. If melee spear units can capture towers more easily, that would reduce tower spam. Everything that reduces entrenchment in the area and makes the economy more attackable, I think it's good. Weakening archers a bit would be ok too.

[smiley]

I recall some days ago when there were Devs who played the game almost on a daily basis on SVN along with lobby players. The last time I was part of that, that led to the discovery of several issues. That of course was possible since active developers were so to say direct liaisons to the active multiplayer base and quite frankly part of them.

No need to dwell on who they were and what happened to them.

[vinme]

On 11/03/2021 at 7:07 AM, borg- said:

The balance cannot be heard by everyone, and that is logical. Each player has a perspective on what op is and what not. Yesterday player Melunises said that champions were unfeasible in this alpha, @vinme and others said no, he insisted that it was. Well that's his point of view, and if we follow his vision then we need to do something for champions. However, I proved to him in two 1v1 games that champions are very possible, so he understood. Balancing is done by the best players for that reason. When there is a constant complaint like in alpha23, slinger, then we know that something needs to be done because all players are complaining, at all levels. Developing open source games is difficult because each person has a "perfect" game vision.

Anyway, we are working for a25, today I was talking to @ValihrAnt about some changes that were necessary for a25, and I would like to share.

Pikeman and spearman need to have an counter vs elephants.

Champion elephants need a hp reduction like 10%.

Mercenaries need to cost a little less metal and maybe start at rank 2.

Reduce the damage of towers a little or decrease the amount of arrows.

Archers needs a little less accuracy, from 2.0 to 2.5.

Ranged cavalry need to move a little faster (16).

Units need reduction in training time mainly cavalry. 8 women 10/12 infantry and 14/15 cav?

It is clear that these ideas are based only on a24. As a25 is built, some values must change.

yeah you are right.i messed up on dogs i still think tehy op but we have to consider that the unit composition of an army makes it mathematically stronger than its counterparts like how 100 dmg 1 hp + 100 hp 1 dmg 2 soliders would destroy 2 dmg 50 hp 2 soliders. dps*hp isnt the complete determinant.still we can use math to calculate units value by also using dmg/hp proportions of the said unit to see how extreme it is compared to other units and go from there.i think all logn range entities need accuracy nerf.archer,cav archer,tower/ect.dont really see the need to reduce train time altho for cav i can see the reason behind it.for ele either do spear/pike counter or -10% hp dont do both altho i think coutner better.

[chrstgtr]

21 hours ago, borg- said:

The balance cannot be heard by everyone, and that is logical. Each player has a perspective on what op is and what not. Yesterday player Melunises said that champions were unfeasible in this alpha, @vinme and others said no, he insisted that it was. Well that's his point of view, and if we follow his vision then we need to do something for champions. However, I proved to him in two 1v1 games that champions are very possible, so he understood. Balancing is done by the best players for that reason. When there is a constant complaint like in alpha23, slinger, then we know that something needs to be done because all players are complaining, at all levels. Developing open source games is difficult because each person has a "perfect" game vision.

Anyway, we are working for a25, today I was talking to @ValihrAnt about some changes that were necessary for a25, and I would like to share.

Pikeman and spearman need to have an counter vs elephants.

Champion elephants need a hp reduction like 10%.

Mercenaries need to cost a little less metal and maybe start at rank 2.

Reduce the damage of towers a little or decrease the amount of arrows.

Archers needs a little less accuracy, from 2.0 to 2.5.

Ranged cavalry need to move a little faster (16).

Units need reduction in training time mainly cavalry. 8 women 10/12 infantry and 14/15 cav?

It is clear that these ideas are based only on a24. As a25 is built, some values must change.

I agree/like with almost all of this. 

Expand the tower nerf to forts and (maybe) CCs and literally all of my big balancing complaints would be gone. 

I have reservations about the pike/spearman counter vs. eles. This would mean that all siege melee siege is dealt best with by melee. I kind of like how rams are best dealt with by melee while eles are best dealt with by range. It forces players to have both melee and range units or else a single ram/ele could destroy an entire base. Instead I would lessen ele's pierce armor. 

[Player of 0AD]

20 hours ago, Dakara said:

Compared to the apha 23 have you noticed any delay in the orders of the game? Shift action, shift put several units to be formed?

Thanks for your feedback

Now it goes like this: If your cc is your "1" and you want to add your castle to the 1, make sure that you release the 1 button before the shift button. Otherwise the cc gets selected immediately so your castle gets deselected. In A23 there was a tolerance time so you could add things to selections comfortably.

[Palaxin]

20 hours ago, a 0ad player said:

I think the current unit vs unit balance and various types of units are good. I think new to a24 is the hard counter of archers vs. infantry spearmen/ slinger. In a23 the direction of the counter was reversed as long as there were not a large number of archers (affected 2-3 civilizations).

At the moment I see the counterattack units as follows:
Bow: hard counterattack against infantry spearmen / slinger
Spear: counters bow
Melee cavalry: very hard counterattack archers
Infantry spearmen: counters spear
Slinger: counters spear and building

AFAIK many years ago there was an official decision to only use soft counters in 0 A.D. (no fixed attack bonuses). That already has changed. However, it's not always that intuitive. Intuitive, for me, would mean about (+ soft counter ++ hard counter):

• ranged infantry
  • archer: + heavy infantry ++ light infantry - spear cavalry -- sword cavalry
  • slinger: + light infantry ++ heavy infantry - spear cavalry -- sword cavalry
  • javelin: ++ ranged - spear cavalry -- sword cavalry
• melee infantry
  • spear: + cavalry - ranged
  • pike: ++ cavalry - ranged - infantry
  • sword: + spear infantry ++ pike infantry + siege -- ranged
• ranged cavalry
  • archer: + heavy infantry ++ light infantry - spear infantry -- pike infantry -- spear cavalry
  • javelin: ++ ranged - spear infantry -- pike infantry -- spear cavalry
• melee cavalry
  • spear: ++ cavalry + ranged - spear infantry -- pike infantry
  • sword: ++ ranged + siege - spear infantry -- pike infantry -- spear cavalry